Jordan Ludwig

Jordan has more than a decade of experience in creatively and tenaciously guiding companies through their most challenging, cutting-edge antitrust and UCL lawsuits on both sides of the “v.”  His track record of successfully resolving cases has spanned diverse industries and earned him numerous accolades, including recently being named a “Lawyer on the Fast Track” by The Recorder.

He has extensive experience litigating high-stakes cases under Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act at all stages of litigation—including at trial and on appeal. His practice runs the gamut and has included matters involving price fixing, bid rigging, market allocation, group boycotts, exclusive dealing, tying, unilateral refusals to deal, Walker Process fraud, sham patent litigation, information sharing, and pay-for-delay, among others. Jordan is also proficient in matters involving the California Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law (Section 17200)—both in litigating cases and serving as a thought leader. He is a co-author of the UCL chapter in the California Antitrust & Unfair Competition Law treatise. Further, for the past several years, he has served as an editor for the ABA’s Antitrust Magazine Online.

Jordan has also litigated a wide variety of complex commercial cases outside the competition arena, including those involving the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, the Lanham Act, securities laws, legal malpractice, tortious interference, and breach of fiduciary duty.

In addition to his litigation practice, Jordan has considerable experience in counseling companies—both with respect to civil and criminal government investigations and in providing prompt and practical advice to business questions.

Jordan maintains an active pro bono practice, where he has worked on issues related to voting rights, racial discrimination, gender discrimination, domestic violence, and immigration.

Representative Matters

• Defending a large global hospitality company in multiple lawsuits alleging a conspiracy among various hotel brands regarding branded keyword advertising. Five days into the jury trial of one of these matters brought by a downstream online travel agency, the matter resolved and the plaintiff publicly apologized to the company and the company’s founding family. During discovery in a related consumer class action, class counsel abandoned their damages class, and the matter resolved shortly thereafter.
  
• Defending a health care distributor in a class-action lawsuit alleging a price-fixing conspiracy regarding generic drugs.
• Defending a pharmacy services administrative organization (PSAO) in a lawsuit alleging the PSAO had violated California’s Unfair Practices Act by engaging in below-cost pricing. We succeeded in compelling the case to arbitration from California Superior Court.
• Defending a local restaurant group in a class-action lawsuit brought under California’s antitrust and unfair competition laws involving a 3 percent surcharge to pay for employee health care. Prior to summary judgment, we obtained decertification of the class.
• Representing multiple health plans as plaintiffs in the In re HIV Antitrust Litigation.
• Representing many of the country’s largest merchants as plaintiffs in the In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation.
• Defending a health care distributor in an antitrust class-action lawsuit regarding syringes and catheters. We obtained dismissal of the matter on a motion to dismiss.
• Defending a large integrated health care system in a monopolization lawsuit.
• Representing a developer in a State Attorney General bid-rigging investigation. The office dropped their antitrust investigation of our client with no action taken.
• Representing an elite college in a DOJ investigation related to early decision admission practices. The DOJ closed the matter against our client with no enforcement action taken.
• Defending a senior executive in a DOJ criminal antitrust investigation into the packaged seafood industry.
• Representing General Motors as a plaintiff in the In re Vehicle Carrier Services Antitrust Litigation.
• Representing a major manufacturer of appliances as a plaintiff in the In re Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litigation.